Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

tekgoblin writes "Back in May there was a class action lawsuit filed against the rental company Aaron's, which had secretly installed spying software that would turn on a laptop's webcam, take pictures and then send them back to the company. Overall it seemed like a large invasion of privacy, which should at least warrant an injunction to stop use of the software until the case is settled, right? Not to the judge, who refused to order an injunction on the grounds that the family was no longer in possession of the laptop. As for everyone else still using their Aaron's laptops, the judge had this to say to them (PDF): 'Moreover, it is purely conjecture that the other members of the putative class will be subjected to remote access of personal information.'"

No, my first question was "I wonder if the Judge Susan Baxter would be okay if she learned that her U.S. government IT staff were secretly taking webcam pics of her with her federal-owned laptop." After all, it's not her property right? It belongs to the federal government. So I'm sure she would be totally cool with her IT people taking random webcam footage of her whenever they felt like it.

I do not think it would matter what you think she would think. In fact, she makes it clear in her statements that she would not like it.

The judge basically stated in the decision that she was bound by law not to provide the injunction as it would be over turned in the direct appeals court to her court due to several reasons. She cited precedent with these reasons too. First, they can only consider the immediate and irreparable harm of the named parties to the suit, not class parties who might be subjected. The named parties would not suffer any immediate harm since they no longer have a computer with the software on it. Another problem was that common sense conclusions cannot be injected into a case. She spends a good deal of time talking about this in which she notes several reversals when this happened in the past and gives notice that the court can only consider things brought up within the complaint.

There are more problems with providing an injunction complete with citations of previous cases to back her reasoning. If someone would initiate a suit alleging direct harm and capable of showing continued harm that doesn't skip important issues in the complaint, she could order an injunction and extend it to everyone putatively involved. But her hands are tied with the way this case have panned out to date as she cited several ways the injunction would be overturned easily if she had granted it.

Not really, the spy program in question takes screenshots, logs key strokes, sound recordings as well as snapshots from the webcam. It's primary goal is to track and recover lost and stolen devices in order to return them to the proper owner as well as prosecute the theft. This is hidden in what they call a detective mode in which Arron's would have activated in order to take web cam snap shots.

Blocking the web cam from view still does nothing to the bulk of the interception of electronic communications whi

Should I go ahead and uninstall that wiretapping software, there's nothing I'm liable for, am I? I mean, I just removed very obviously malicious software, the rental place should be happy that I did it. They would surely have informed me if they installed something like this deliberately.

I think the law is that you can't record audio in a room unless someone in the room knows it is being recorded. Recording video (such as the webcam) is not "illegal" especially given the legal precedence this judge just created.

Of course, this spyware the rental company was using probably wasn't TOO concerned with the finer nuances of the law... I'm sure there were disclaimers and whatnot - "customer ensures all use of this software is legal, blah blah blah, we're not liable if you use it illegally, blah b

This all varies from state to state. Federal law is at least one person party to the conversation needs to be aware of the recording. Some state make it clear that all parties need to be aware of the recording. Most of the laws concerning the recordings state something about the recording being done for or used in a legal actions.

Also, most states now make it illegal to record video without an obvious notice of the recording and never in places where someone expects a level of privacy. This stems from a ras

"Accidentally" write a program that will replace the camera's video stream with a constant loop of 2 Girls, with some subliminal flashes of goatse for good measure. Let them monitor that one.

(For additional fun, try to "accidentally" get the program to detect when the monitoring by a human begins, and start to stream some webcam porn instead. For 15 seconds. Then when you know you have their attention-- see above)

I wonder how far this will be allowed to go. Can they (the rental company) install key loggers? Can they save your internet history? How long can they keep this information? What happens to this information if the company folds and assets have to be sold off?

Could this be expanded to other rental devices? What about "rent to own" stuff? Leased stuff? Could they bug a car with cameras and mics?

Have you ever seriously considered renting anything from Aarons? The prices they charge make it obvious that their only customers are people who don't understand basic arithmetic. To rent a washing machine for 1 week was 25% of the purchase price - to rent it for a month, you could have a brand new one delivered and installed by a (non-discount) appliance store.

I was thinking the point was to get them to cause a huge mess over the whole deal, get the police involved, and waste everyones time.... making them look like even bigger jackasses in the end, and showing one more reason why this is completely unjustified.... and because it would be funny to show the cops the amature video production and then get all indigent about privacy violation.

Physically, teenagers are adults (biologically able to procreate). Two hundred years ago teenage sex was just something that happened and wasn't talked about. Assuming the teenagers in question weren't already married. There's nothing more disgusting about teenage porn than adult porn, except the very modern idea that children are not adults until some arbitrary law says so.

Thats what I always do - perhaps I'm paranoid but it only takes a few seconds and it resolves all of these sorts of issues along with malware checking you out. But then I don't use skype or do webchats , perhaps for someone who did it would be a nuisance but if not I recommend everyone to do it.

Oh look people's rights being stomped on again, seems like a common theme these days. I hope goverments don't sit around wondering why their populations are pissed off at them, cause they sure as hell don't have to look far.

... to increasingly hold the general public in disdain. I'm not sure where this attitude is coming from , perhaps the law profession is attracting the wrong type of person or the wrong sort is being promoted to the judiciary by like minded misfits of a similar persuation already entrenched there, but its a worrying precedant either way.

Actually, if you think about, an independent judicial system is supposed to hold the general public in disdain. That's why it is independent. The problem is that specific parts the the general public is not held in disdain: corporations, Judges appear to be hypnotized by them. I wonder why...

The software is only supposed to be used to find the location of stolen equipment or equipment out of lease so that the equipment can be easily retrieved. The problem was that when the plaintiffs paid cash for the laptop the cash was diverted by a dishonest employee and never got recorded. As far as the manager knew the laptop was out of lease and needed to be retrieved. The plaintiffs failed to make the case that the software was being used on a regular basis to spy on owners or renters of the equipment. There was evidence that the software was being used but the purpose of that use is unclear. Due to that, the injunction was not granted.

The out of context quote 'Moreover, it is purely conjecture that the other members of the putative class will be subjected to remote access of personal information' is salacious at best. Not it says "will be subjected" not "can be subjected". It is not proven that other renters will have their money stolen by an dishonest employee and their laptop considered out of lease.

Normal people: "I don't understand why he made that decision I don't like. I should really research it further until I do."Slashdotters: "I don't understand why he made that decision I don't like. Therefore, he's clearly a corrupt fascist, and should be shot." [slashdot.org]

Depends on what you consider "normal". If "normal" means "sensible and responsible" then yes. If "normal" means "average, typical, according to the statistical norm" then it's probably more like "What decision? Stop bothering me while I'm showing my dick on Chatroulette using this rented laptop I can't afford".On a side note, does chatroulette still exist?

The pretense under which this software is expected to be used is immaterial. If I'm a landlord I can't install hidden cameras in my apartments just because I spin it with some bullshit pretense that 'I'll only turn them on when they don't pay the rent, honest!'

In the first place, a camera doesn't generally help with retrieval or the exaction of payment (outside of blackmail). It's not like people are going to set up their laptops outside where the camera can see street signs and house numbers. When someone is responsible for a system that spies on private persons in their own domiciles, if that system isn't a prima facie violation of anti-voyeurism laws, they are at a minimum responsible to be transparent about controls in place to prevent abuse, and they must get express consent from those they are 'observing', even in most states where single party recording is legal, since they are not physically present.

I am not a lawyer and the above should not be construed as legal advice.

I'll grant you the notion that the pretense for this software is immaterial, largely because the lessee does not have any way of knowing when the software is being used (e.g. if the defendent has an employee who is using said software maliciously.) However, your first point is invalid for the following reasoning:

Cameras can take pictures of the person using the computer. Those pictures can be provided to law enforcement, who should be able to compare said pictures to photographs in their records (e.g. DMV

Mod parent up. (Oops... too late)
The summary twists the story. I RTFD and think the judge made the only call he could make given the facts presented. I'd call it crappy lawyering before I'd blame the judge.
Now, don't construe this to think I'm ok with rental agent's behavior. As I recall, the business model for these kinds of organizations typically involves preying on the poor and/or ignorant with rent-to-own schemes that resemble something a loan shark might offer. Spycams and keylogging fit nicel

As usual with coverage of complex legal decisions, the headlines and soundbites don't resemble the decision at all. The case hasn't even begun; the judge did not "allow" the webcams at all. He's just ruling on a preliminary injunction before the case begins: the plaintiff is asking for the judge to issue an order stopping Aaron's from further use of the cameras while the case is going on. The judge is saying here that the injunction is moot because the plaintiff doesn't have the laptop, and hasn't presented any evidence that anyone else is being recorded. The judge is just saying (1) he can't order Aaron's to stop doing something when there's no evidence that they're actually doing it, and (2) the case is weak because the law under which they are suing may not apply (which is true; the plaintiffs ought to be suing under more general privacy torts). Under no stretch of reality does this mean he's "allowing" the use of the webcams.

I don't see why lack of evidence that they are actually doing it should be a reason not to have the preliminary injunction. If they are banned from doing something they aren't doing anyway, it doesn't affect them in any way.

Because that would go against the entire concept of justice. Preliminary injunctions are serious business and not to be taken lightly. How can you not see why lack of evidence is not enough to grant a preliminary injunction?

Yes, I'm sure that thieves will conveniently set their stolen property outside where it has full view of street signs and house numbers instead of pointing at a nondescript wall in one of a billion buildings somewhere. The best thing it would do is get a picture of the guy that took the device; however with delinquent renters that point is moot since the rental agency already ostensibly knows what the renters look like and where they are supposed to reside.

Ok so each time its rented, generate a new key, give it to the customer. Laptop encrypts each photo. If laptop is stolen the customer can be asked to turn over the key. If not... no privacy issues, and no covert bs going on.

Your computer might. Almost all business line Dells and HPs have a provision for keeping a LoJack for Laptops agent in a part of the ROM where even a BIOS flash can't get rid of it. You can turn it on, install LoJack, and go from there. Additionally, you can have the private files or the whole machine erased from remote.

Of course you give up privacy in return for this ability so be aware of that.

Personally, I prefer to pack my own parachute, and use disk encryption so a hardware theft is just only a hard

Another user pointed out that this is a pre-trial ruling, but imagine if a ruling like this was passed down to the final verdict. Most all schools like to "lease" their laptops. A ruling with a measure like this attached could harm future cases.

In one case, someone recording the police (who are public office and should as such reasonably expect no secrecy while in public) is wiretapping, but someone who rents a laptop and is recorded without his consent isn't?
I see, if i'll ever rent a laptop i'll print out goatse and slap it in app. distance from the camera.

In one case, someone recording the police (who are public office and should as such reasonably expect no secrecy while in public) is wiretapping, but someone who rents a laptop and is recorded without his consent isn't?

They probably do agree to it. Something like that would have to be in the rental agreement and contract that they signed. The problem with this whole thing is that the software was only to be turned on if the laptop was stolen/out of lease, which the renters did not believe it to be.

Abridged constitutional rights are a irreparable injury, Once your privacy has been abridged, you never get that back. Like free speech, if your denied your right to speak a certain time in a certain place in a certain audience, you never get that back. A fundemental constitutional right.

Here they were looking for an injunction to stop the practice and this clown has injoined all defendants to not tamper with the stores ability to abridge privacy.

It may be controllable by software, so the spy app just keeps it off. Or, it might slowly fade in and out, which may give the possibity of enabling the camera, snapping a picture, and turning it off before the user has the chance to notice anything. Even when the light is perfectly visible quite a few people will take it for a glitch if it blinks once in a while.

Every one I've seen is hardwired (that's kind of the point), and if you turn it on and off as fast as possible it will still stay on for a couple of seconds (I know all this from making a workaround for a Linux power management glitch).

Oh goodie a LAW dictating lights on a laptop - just what we need! What a load of crap. I do NOT want another light on my laptop thanks and requiring it via some sort of retarded law is insane. Putting it into documentation simply means it will be yet another thing that won't get seen by most users. How about instead we simply use some common sense and fry the companies that are bugging users like this. There's already been one case where a school was snapping pics of the kids using the computers - complete

We have too many laws, and we don't have enough. That pretty much means (logically) one thing: We have misappropriated laws.

I'm not going to focus, but I'll just mention one dichotomy to clarify what I'm saying above: We have a law to not shoot someone unless your life is in danger, and we also have a law to notify people when coffee is hot.

If you're talking about the lawsuit regarding the lady who was driving with hot cup of coffee in her lap and spilled it and was awarded money from McDonald's, that's a bit of an urban legend propagated by the right wing. First, the lady wasn't driving, she was a passenger. Plus, the car was not moving. Finally, it's not just that the coffee was hot, but it was kept at a temperature hotter than you could possibly make coffee at home. So hot in fact, that it melted the styrofoam cup and boiled onto her lap. It was found that McDonalds had been keeping coffee at a temperature over 190 degrees and had had almost 40 warnings from health inspectors and complaints from customers in that area.

So yes, if you're going to serve coffee in to-go cups at a temperature that can cause third degree burns then you better notify your customers.

Further, this story hit the media at a time when the Chamber of Commerce and other corporate groups were trying to bring "tort reform" which is code for "don't punish companies that knowingly hurt people". And the story, changed to be a young black lady driving a car with hot coffee in her lap (leaving out the third degree burns) started making the media rounds via Chamber press releases.

Another well-known urban myth, one that Ronald Reagan liked to spread, was the one about the guy who got hit by a truck

You went right from one urban legend to one on the other side and threw basic science and reason out the window with it. First of all, the cup didn't melt, she spilled it on herself while removing the lid (Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants [wikipedia.org]. Secondly, you say the temperature was 190 degrees, and "was kept at a temperature hotter than you could possibly make coffee at home". This leaves us with two possible options.

You meant 190F and somehow lack the sufficient technology to boil water at home. If that's the case, find some wood, light it on fire, and put a pot of water above it. Let me know if you have questions.

You meant 190C and expect us to believe this coffee existed in some sort of pressurized coffee cup that allowed the water to be heated to nearly twice it's normal boiling point and yet when the pressure was released it somehow spilled rather then vaporizing

Isn't it right to privacy from the government? You must be able to sign away your right to privacy for something like a reality TV show. Is it different when they agree to provide you with a laptop and a contract versus money from a tv show and a contract?

In some states there are laws against secretly making audio recordings of people but not video or pictures. I recall a case a few years ago where a man rented a house to people with hidden cameras inside. He got busted because his video recordings had sound, else he would have gotten off.

I can't find their terms of service, but would be surprised if they don't specify that the system is not to be manipulated or removed until it is paid in full. You could back up the hard drive (or even switch it), but if you own a secondary hard drive and have the technical expertise to do this, you can probably afford a computer outright. Plus, even opening the case might violate their terms.

Unfortunately, they are likely able to enforce quite restrictive terms, as the device remains their property until p

Thing is, it's a lot -cheaper- to own a computer than to rent one, especially since there's a huge surplus of second-hand computers.

If you cannot afford even that, you're better off doing without a computer at all until you've saved up enough. (save the money you'd otherwise pay to rent a computer!)

Give me a break. People who have no money have no idea how to handle money. They live paycheck to paycheck, spending every penny they have whether they need what they're buying or not. The rent-to-own centers pray on the uneducated/poor with the promise of being able to "purchase" shinny new things with bad or no credit. Hell, recent commercials even highlight the fact you can "stop paying at any time without damaging your credit rating."

Actually, I'm looking heavily into rent-to-own for musical instruments in the future. They're expensive, yes; but I can get a good, $1000 Romanian-made violin for $50/mo, and if i hate the violin I'm out $150. If I hate THAT violin, I switch to another, and then when I find a model I enjoy I tell them to exchange my RTO for a brand new one of that model and apply my rental costs.

The RTO place I'm going to basically rents these instruments, so you get something used by a dozen people before, mostly high s

Or, you could simply do some research, try out various models on display, find one you like, and then outright buy it instead of wasting money on a rental agreement where only a tiny percentage of your RTO payment will actually apply to your purchase.

Or, you could simply do some research, try out various models on display, find one you like, and then outright buy it instead of wasting money on a rental agreement where only a tiny percentage of your RTO payment will actually apply to your purchase.

You can't always do enough research to know what works for you. I don't play an instrument, but I'd imagine that a violin that works beautifully for one person just doesn't feel right for another person, and playing the display model for 30 minutes (or even several hours) in the store isn't the same as playing it every day for a couple months. Why spend $1200 on that instrument when you can spend a couple hundred dollars to try it out and you know they have another one waiting for you if the first one doesn

so why not do a normal rental (or RTO but ignoring the O option) for a few months until you know you have what you want, and then go buy it outright and probably still save money over staying in the RTO?

"People who have no money don't know how to handle money" doesn't imply "people who have money know how to handle it".

Besides, Wall Street traders made a killing, then left the resulting mess to be paid for by the rest of us. So it seems to me that they know how to handle money just fine; it's their morality that is lacking.

You seem to be inverting the quote and implying that people who have money know how to handle money. Plus, WS doesn't count - they have money, but that's because they use other people's money to make money.

We have a huge portion of our population that literally has trouble planning for tomorrow, let alone next week, next month or next year or further. I was married to one of those once. It was surreal. (Let's not get into my once being young, inexperienced, naive and all that... I'm not that now.) I got a first-hand look at what it's like to live that way and it's nothing I could tolerate. The thing is, people who live like this are in the majority! People who manage their money even a little are i

Yes, these places really are "bad." Many years ago a female friend tried to rent a TV just for a month, and they scammed her into rent-to-own (she was only 20, not familiar with contract legalese) and even after she paid the last payment (after a year, coming out to 3X the price of the TV overall) they tried to claim she never paid all the payments and tried to take back the TV.

I intervened, got screamed at and threatened by the store manager, who even grabbed my arm roughly to throw me out. Had there not been several other customers in the store, my words "that looks like assault to me" might have been ignored as most of the sales people looked like ex-football players.

So yes, these places are designed to be bad, and commonly follow blatantly illegal practices.

It may simply not make sense to buy--if, for example, a laptop under warranty breaks, you aren't in a place where you can borrow one, and you need a laptop for that day due to commitments. Or perhaps if your computing habits were such that you didn't use a laptop except for once every two or three years--maybe you use desktops at home and work and usually rely on a blackberry when traveling.

That little fact is key to the case. Obviously, Aaron's sells computers with spyware on them, then neglects to remove said spyware when the computer is no longer their property to spy on.

But, I have problems with the scope of the spying anyway. All they NEED is some software that will give the home server the physical location of the computer. There are computers with such a feature enabled in the BIOS. Why isn't Aaron's using that feature, or something very similar? They certainly do NOT need screensh

If you are running Linux, you probably know something about computers, and you probably have a computer related or supported job, hence you are likely not renting to own a laptop for twice the regular price.

No one is claiming ownership of the laptop, but the real problem is this next bit:

This company has every right to do whatever the hell they want with it.

Pants-on-head crazy. If you rent/lease an apartment, can your landlord take a shower at night in your bathroom? Can he watch you while you sleep? It's not just creepy-wrong, it's illegal.

Don't like it? Tough. Either go buy a laptop, which makes it yours, or find a way to disable the program, which no doubt is against the rental agreement.

Contract law can be a complicated thing, but here's something to know: if a person tells you to do something illegal, in a contract that you sign,you don't have to do the illegal thing. If a person says that they're goin

No, but it does mean you have certain exclusive rights for a period of time, even more rights than the actual owner. If you rent an apartment, and the landlord leaves cameras around the place he's breaking the law. He doesn't have the right to enter your home, even if he technically owns it. Renting a laptop should be the exact same sort of thing.

For all intents and purposes of criminal proceedings, yes, you do. If you are renting an apartment, and you are busted manufacturing drugs, you are considered the owner of the property, not the apartment complex. You lose your rental contract, the apartment complex gets its stuff back (unless it's proven that the apartment complex rented it out with the knowledge that you were going to do something illegal in it in the first place, then they lose their stuff too.)